<p>I was planning to enroll at Rice but my father is saying that alumni connection is really really important especially when I look for jobs. So, he's telling me to go to Michigan where there are lots of students, professors etc. who can support me later after I graduate. (just because we are all from the same undergrad school)</p>
<p>I mean, do I have to rescind Rice admission for a stronger undergrad alumni connection especially if I am planning to go for MBA after engineering?
If I go to a bigger grad school, wouldn't that be more than enough ??</p>
<p>So, what do you think.. Should I go to Michigan or Rice???</p>
<p>I think you should go to Rice, but as a current student I’m biased. I honestly doubt alumni connection is going to be that important to you in your job search; employers know Rice has a high-caliber student body. Anyway, since Michigan has so many undergrads, I would think alumni might not think as much of an alumni connection as graduates from a smaller school might. Go where you think you will be happy.</p>
<p>It would be a hard choice. If you want to do engineering, I would choose Rice. It’s in the heart of Houston and is a great recruiting base for engineers with all the energy/oil firms located there.</p>
<p>Which one is the cheapest choice? All are fantastic and will provide you the same opportunities.</p>
<p>I agree with UCBChem, you cannot go wrong. I would recommend you focus on fit and finances. Where do you think you would be happiest? Is one of those schools cheaper. Last I checked, UNC was cheaper than the other schools and Chapel Hill is one nice college town. </p>
<p>In terms of academics, you really cannot go wrong with this group of universities. Michigan and UIUC are amazing in Engineering, but Rice is pretty good in Engineering too. Michigan is also excellent for Econ, but Rice is also pretty solid in Economics. In terms of alumni networks, Michigan is hard to beat, but then again, so are UNC and Rice. Overall, I think Michigan and Rice would offer you the most flexibility. </p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is international repuation. In that domain, Michigan separates itself from the pack. Rice, UNC and UIUC have excellent reputations in the US, but internationally, they are not as well recognized. That may explain why your father prefers Michigan. If you intend on retuning home after you graduate, you may be better off going to Michigan.</p>
<p>Why would choose Michigan whose acceptance rate is 50%, which I think is ridiculously high for so-called prestigious university and whose out-of-state tuition is higher than that of Rice? There is no question that the residential college system of Rice would provide better undergraduate experience. Contrary to the universal belief, alumni connection does not play a significant role in job placement. You should enroll at Rice.</p>
<p>Based on relative size alone, I’d choose Rice in a heartbeat over Michigan.</p>
<p>Rice is a gem. Its only drawback is that it is in Houston. I know that Houston has its defenders but I find that the combination of hot, humid weather with its lack of zoning makes Houston almost uninhabitable.</p>
<p>I doubt Rice is that well known outside of the U.S. as Michigan is. You have to understand the pysche with many international students and their parents. They want a “name” school most importantly because i believe that they think it will help to insure a better employment opportunity back home.</p>
<p>I am surprised that Berkeley, with a substantially lower amount of students than Michigan, would have more “living alumni.” I think that comment might be a bit of an exaggeration, or someone is embellishing the numbers.</p>
<p>Bonanza, although Michigan is large, it manages its size very well. Yes, Rice will be cozier, but Michigan can be made to feel very small if one makes the effort. In other words, Michigan isn’t a typical large state university. It operates very much like a smaller, well-endowed university.</p>
<p>HansTrojan, Michigan received close to 30,000 applications this year and admitted fewer than 12,000. That’s more like a 40% acceptance rate. And since when does acceptance rate equal quality or prestige? Michigan’s applicant pool, like Chicago’s, is very self-selective. That explains why both of those schools have had high acceptance rates. But if you question Michigan’s reputation, go no further than its Peer Assessment score (academe’s overall opinion of undergraduate institutions). According to that measure of recognition, Michigan is as highly regarded as Rice. </p>
<p>If the OP decides to work in the Texas area (or the South in general) when he is done with collge, I think Rice may be best. If he intends to Work in the NE or internationally, Michigan would probably serve him best.</p>
<p>Actually novi, Cal isn’t substantially smaller than Michigan. Michigan has 25,000 undergrads and 15,000 grads. Cal has 23,000 undergrads and 10,000 grads. But I agree, Michigan should have a larger alumni body than Cal.</p>
<p>Alexandre, those numbers reflect a 7,000 person difference or approximately 18% fewer students at Cal. I humbly disagree that Cal isn’t substantially smaller. I see it as this, Michigan should be graduatingat least 1,000 people more a year than Cal. That is substantial in my opinion.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on one’s definition of substantial. I don’t think Cal is substantially smaller than Michigan. Hell, I don’t even think schools like Cornell or Penn are substantially smaller. I guess it depends on one’s own perception.</p>